Case law

KING

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 14, 2026

The Court’s decision denying qualified immunity to defendants Linster and Berry was affirmed on appeal in July 2026. Doc. 192 at 24–25. … While he was not “retained or specially employed,” arguably he should have been more clearly disclosed as an expert witness, not a hybrid witness. See Mayo, 2022 WL 1298742, at *2.

SCHANES

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 27, 2026

Supp. 3d 952, 954-57 (M.D.N.C. 2017) (noting the differences between Eleventh Amendment immunity and state sovereign immunity, while also addressing the interplay between both immunities and federal jurisdiction) … Thus, any Eleventh Amendment immunity has been waived, and any sovereign immunity as to the state claims can be further considered by the state court on remand.

Ketner v. Branch Banking & Trust Co.

143 F. Supp. 3d 370 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Oct 29, 2015

In determining whether an employee qualifies for a white collar exemption, “job title[s] alone [are] insufficient.” Id. § 541.2. … At this time, the Court makes no determination on whether this action qualifies as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act. .

Mullis v. Mechanics & Farmers Bank

994 F. Supp. 680 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Oct 17, 1997

Darden, 503 U.S. 318, 322-23 , 112 S.Ct. 1344 , 117 L.Ed.2d 581 (1992) (adopting a common law test for who qualifies as an employee under ERISA)). … Jarman, 950 F.Supp. at 1379 (holding that a “five-month delay is clearly long enough to prevent [the defendant’s] response from being characterized as immediate”).

Sealy, Inc. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance

286 F. Supp. 2d 625 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 29, 2003

(“Sealy”), a plan sponsor, administrator and fiduciary of an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) qualified employee medical benefit plan, brought this action seeking a declaration of its rights pursuant to 28 … Even though the funds are not currently in any of the four Defendants’ possession, they are clearly traceable to a particular account.

BOYKINS v. LOCKLEAR

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 6, 2024

It also does not identify the mail clearly, but describes it in the portion of the Complaint dealing with answers to one of Plaintiff’s grievances. (Docket Entry 3 at 9.) … If the mail was a response to a prison grievance, it is not clear how this qualifies as legal mail given that it is not a communication with a court or with legal counsel and does not pertain to any legal proceeding.

WALLS v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 11, 2022

To establish causation, therefore, they do not attempt to establish threshold toxicity, but rather qualitatively assess Walls’ exposure to asbestos from Defendants’ products using his testimony and DePasquale’s report and … He lists several relevant factors and relevant facts from Walls’ testimony but does not clearly apply the factors to the facts or otherwise explain his causation testimony.

WEINER v. VAN ALLEN APARTMENTS

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 12, 2025

The third ground for dismissal under Section 1915(e) (2) (B) generally applies when doctrines established by the United States Constitution or at common law immunize governments and/or government … Because the First and Second 14 The record does not establish diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction over any state claims.

WEINER v. CITY OF DURHAM

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 12, 2025

The third ground for dismissal under Section 1915(e) (2) (B) generally applies when doctrines established by the United States Constitution or at common law immunize governments and/or government … Because the First and Second 14 The record does not establish diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction over any state claims.

Villages of Cornwallis Owners Ass'n v. Durham Housing Authority

894 F. Supp. 236 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jul 21, 1995

Issues of public policy, waste, and sovereign immunity may serve as formidable barriers to relief. See Glendale Neighborhood Ass’n v. Greensboro Housing Auth., No. 2:95CV00277 (M.D.N.C., June 8, 1995). … Determinations as to whether or not a site is located in an area of minority concentration need not rely solely on census tract data if those data are clearly out of date and do not accurately reflect the neighborhood racial

Smith v. Travelers Indemnity Company

343 F. Supp. 605 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · May 31, 1972

The defendant, however, argues that it has never had its day in court to establish whether the transaction was covered by the policy. … The distinguishing factor of both the Glenn case and the statute is that in both the relationship of attorney and client had already been established.

Smith v. Liberty Mutual Insurance

449 F. Supp. 928 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Apr 24, 1978

In response to the defendant’s position that the Hoover cases establish an identity between the employer and his insurance carrier, the plaintiff asserts that the statute under which these decisions were decided (G.S. § 97 … Accordingly, the Court concludes that there does exist persuasive authority in North Carolina to sustain the defendant’s position that it is not a “third party” within the meaning of G.S. § 97-10.2 and, therefore, is immune

HARRINGTON v. SOUTHERN HEALTH PARTNERS, INC.

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 1, 2022

Thus, “[p]ublic official immunity ‘is unavailable to officers who violate clearly established rights.’” Hensley ex rel. North Carolina v. … “Rather, ‘[m]unicipal liability attaches only where the decisionmaker possesses final authority to establish municipal policy with respect to the action ordered.’” Id.

STREET v. SANTIAGO

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 7, 2023

Plaintiff includes the videos as part of her allegations and contends that the video recordings “show clearly that Plaintiff did not assault the man who cut in front of her . . . and … As a sovereign, the United States and its agencies are immune from suit absent a waiver of that immunity. F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994).

OLDHAM v. UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jun 13, 2023

Supp. 2d 662, 682 (M.D.N.C. 2003) (noting that university department chair and dean could be immune from suit on the basis of public official immunity); Hwang v. … Because Defendants Cunningham and Gallo enjoy public official immunity for negligence claims, for the reasons noted, they are immune from this claim as well.

SMITH v. UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 25, 2021

“An immunity defense for damages claims is unavailable if: (1) Congress has abrogated a state's immunity pursuant to its powers under the Fourteenth Amendment; or (2) a state has waived its immunity by consenting to suit … While the pleadings need not “contain specific facts establishing a prima facie case of discrimination” under the McDonnell Douglas framework, Swierkiewicz v.

Conservation Council of North Carolina v. Froehlke

435 F. Supp. 775 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jul 28, 1977

However, Durham contends that the evidence clearly establishes that the proposed lake is likely to be a shallow, *781 motionless body of water unsuitable for its intended uses. … Clearly, the Corps’ decision in this respect was not clearly erroneous.

BETTS v. ARMSTRONG

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · May 5, 2025

“In order to establish diversity jurisdiction, the parties must be completely diverse; none of the plaintiffs may share citizenship with any of the defendants.” Owens–Illinois, Inc. v. … (Id. at 3; see also Docket Entry 2-1 at 6-7.)4 Plaintiff clearly “seeks redress for an injury caused by [a] state-court decision.” See Davani, 434 F.3d at 719.

LADUE v. FORSYTH MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Nov 1, 2022

In the document, Plaintiff states that “Motion Allowed to dismiss for qualified immunity,” and that due to FMH being a private hospital and not personally involved in his “actual injury,” he “agree[d] with there dismissal … Specifically, FMH argues that (1) it is not “a person” covered under § 1983, as it is a private, non-profit corporation; (2) Plaintiff fails to allege any facts that establish FMH acted under the color of state law when

Westchester Fire Insurance v. Johnson

221 F. Supp. 2d 637 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jun 27, 2002

As a result, the Court will only grant a motion for summary judgment for a moving party when “the entire record shows a right to judgment with such clarity as to leave no room for controversy” and the record clearly demonstrates … Because the conduct described in § 58-63-15(ll)(f) by itself qualified as an unfair and deceptive trade practice, the Court reasoned that it was not necessary to require a plaintiff to additionally establish that the conduct